2010/2/23 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
wide truck. But if it is tagged est_width=3.5, you will not... And let say I
have a bigger truck than yours and is 5 meters wide. How can I find a way if
none of the highways have a width tag ?
are we talking about boats or trucks? If you drive a big truck
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Don't want to stir up a whole new hornet's nest, but would that be
kerb-to-kerb (i.e. tarmac width) or wall-to-wall (limiting the overall
vehicle width)?
Good question. The wiki simply says width of a way. So it's
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I come to a road with width=3 - that is indeed useful.
I come to a road with narrow=yes - that is not as useful.
I just don't understand how everyone can have the same argument, again
and again, about every new tag or
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
If a user is bad at estimating widths I suggest that he measures the
exact width. Still narrow is not a good solution to the problem as
many posters have already written above.
I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow
Australia
On 22 February 2010 18:54, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow
Paces of a short or tall person? :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote:
On 22 February 2010 18:54, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
I reckon 3 paces would be more helpful than narrow
Paces of a short or tall person? :)
well they could add in the notes that they are 170cm tall and walking on
crutches if they like
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore
it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it.
?? With my Fiat 500 or you BMW X5 ?
AND: you can
always compare to the
Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
no, you can always compare it to the width of your vehicle, therefore
it doesn't require that all streets are tagged width it.
?? With my Fiat 500 or you
On 23 February 2010 10:45, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
have a bigger truck than yours and is 5 meters wide. How can I find a way if
none of the highways have a width tag ?
So if a way is missing a maxspeed=* tag, that means we can travel at
any speed we like, or should we use the
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Hey, guys, come back to the real world. As you said, putting the width_est
is only helpful if you can
Pieren wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they
should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Hey, guys, come back to the real
Hello,
== Proposal ==
It is important to define narrow for highways residential,
unclassified and living_street. Tag {{tag|width|narrow}} is not yet
defined at [[Key:width]]. The alternatives are =3.5m, =3m, =2.5m and
=2m. It is also important to know the width limit for when narrow
rendering
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
Just estimate the width, width:est=*
Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at
least it puts a number to it
Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have
to
On 19 February 2010 01:54, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't give again the same arguments as last time on this list. We just have
How is the argument given less relevent than last time?
to admit that many contributors find easier to say that a residential street
is narrower than the
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, John Smith wrote:
If I form an opinion stating 2m is narrow and someone forms an opinion
stating 4m is narrow how is that helpful in the least?
Narrow on foot or narrow in a truck imply different widths.
So I'm in favour of estimating a width for this purpose, and not
Pieren wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Just estimate the width, width:est=*
Narrow is too subjective where as width:est isn't much better but at
least it puts a number to it
Don't give again
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
confirm width
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
If users are so incompetent at judging distances then maybe they should
never hve picked up a GPS in the first place.
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
On 19 February 2010 10:19, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Or they should use est_width=1.5m + note=road looks narrow - please
confirm width
Which is what was being suggested in the proposal on the wiki:
Lets say we define narrow as approximately =3m. Then a way with width=2.5
will
19 matches
Mail list logo
